International law has become the reference frame that establishes legitimacy for international encounters, but paradoxically and at the same time international law itself has become increasingly contested. This paper analyses the relationship between norm acceptance and norm implementation and examines an instance of norm contestation in the context of the US 'war on terror'. The focus is on the use of torture or 'enhanced interrogation methods' during the Bush Presidency. The socalled 'torture memos' that were made public in recent years shed light on different arguments that were used by the government at the time to justify their actions and to show that they were in line with existing international legal obligations. The paper seeks to assess the validity of international agreements by analysing compliance and actual meaning ('meaning-in-use') of fundamental international human rights norms that are being contested through different interpretations and usages on the domestic level. KeywordsTorture; Law and Norms; Human Rights; Norm contestation The paper analyses a central puzzle that exists in two opposing yet concurrent developments: more and more international human rights laws and standards are negotiated and agreed upon between states but at the same time, such obligations are circumvented when they are perceived to impact on national interests (especially with regard to national security). It examines the relationship between norm acceptance and implementation (i.e. human rights as agreed upon and codified in international law) and norm compliance by looking at the contested interpretations of established standards. As Wiener and Puetter (2009, p. 3) rightly argue, international law is increasingly used as a reference frame for the legality of policy decisions, but paradoxically and at the same time, it is international law itself that is increasingly contested.

This article considers challenges to the existing international human rights regime in the post-9/11 era. It uses an interdisciplinary approach that brings together issues of politics and law by focussing on international legal provisions and setting them into the context of International Relations theory. The article examines the establishment of Guantanamo Bay as a detention centre for suspected terrorists captured in the 'war on terror' and focuses on violations of international human rights and humanitarian law in the name of national security. This article demonstrates that the wrangling over Guantanamo Bay is an important illustration of the complex interaction between interests and norms as well as law and politics in US policy making. The starting point is that politics and law are linked and cannot be seen in isolation from each other; the question that then arises is what kind of politics law can maintain.The events of 9/11 had a profound effect on human rights in US national policy; established international human rights standards came increasingly second place behind national security considerations and advances in international human rights that had been made over the past decades were suddenly called into question for the need to emphasise national security. America declared a 'war on terror' with far

No abstract

The International Criminal Court is a new mechanism for the global governance of human rights that enjoys broad support from a large number of states. The United States expressed its hostile opposition especially in the early years, claiming that the ICC was harmful to US national interests. This attitude toward the court changed over the years, and a more pragmatic approach toward the ICC is now discernible. The United States had to acknowledge actions taken in opposition to the ICC started to be harmful to its own national interests and it also realised the national-interest utility the court has despite the deep-seated opposition to the concept of supranational sovereignty. This article looks at the reasons for US opposition, its initial hostile position, and changes in the US approach towards the ICC.

The article addresses the links between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the implications of their developments in the context of Libya and Syria. R2P as well as the ICC focus on the idea that sovereignty has evolved from being an absolute right towards including responsibility towards a state's own citizens. This idea was applied in the case of Libya where military as well as judicial intervention was supported by R2P language but intervention in Syria to stop human rights abuses in a similar vein is not forthcoming. The article focuses primarily on the Responsibility to Prosecute in these two cases. The principles of ending impunity and holding individuals accountable for their actions are not questioned by the international society, but the main problem is how this can be done in a politically sustainable way. Security Council referral doesn't seem to be the best option because too close ties with the Council will lead to the ICC becoming a politicised tool, moving further away from what it was designed to do: enforcing justice principles universally and impartially. I.